Debate between Dan Cardinale and Kent Hovind

[pitabread]

Remember Kent Hovind? Apparently he's still been at it.

This is an online video debate between Dan Cardinale (professional biologist) and Kent Hovind.

For those who don't want to sit through all 90 minutes, these were my general takeaways from the debate:

• The debate is about whether macroevolution occurs.
• Dan avoids the subjects of fossils or long periods of time in favor of contemporary, observable examples of evolution.
• Hovind makes repeated claims that evolution of multicellularity is impossible, despite that being one of Dan's examples. Dan has to remind Hovind several times until Hovind acknowledges it, but ultimately doesn't have an answer for it.
• Hovind makes various ignorant statements re: reproduction including that a population of all female lizards couldn't reproduce. This is despite the existence of New Mexico whiptail lizards, which are just that, an all female species.
• Hovind rejects all of Dan's examples as macroevolution. When Dan asks Hovind what would constitute macroevolution, Hovind's nonsensical reply is something about a dog growing as big as Texas.

The experience of watching this debate was akin to watching a washed up boxer fighting well past their prime. Hovind's debate tactics are well known, so Dan was able side-step a lot of Hovind's usual rhetoric. Instead, Dan brought numerous examples of evolution that Hovind clearly knew nothing about it. That Dan is a professional biologist and someone experienced with debating creationists certainly gives him the edge in that regard.

 

[Frank Robert]

This is an online video debate between Dan Cardinale (professional biologist) and Kent Hovind.

Thanks for the video which I intend to watch. I have watched several of Dan's videos, he is a good debater and plays fair.

 

[pitabread]

Thanks for the video which I intend to watch. I have watched several of Dan's videos, he is a good debater and plays fair.

I've been impressed with Dan's channel and his content, especially discussions with folks like Ken Miller and Michael Behe.

 

[topher694]

Thank you for the unbiased summary.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I follow Dan (DarwinZDF42) on Reddit. He's really fantastic at explaining biology and cutting through creationist rhetoric and mumbo-jumbo.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is an online video debate between Dan Cardinale (professional biologist) and Kent Hovind.

Dan reminds me of Roy Scheider.

 

[AV1611VET]

I love it when someone gives a definition of macroevolution.

They always say it is, "Evolution above the species level," but they always stop short of what they mean.

They don't explain that the next step above the species level is "genus."

So you'll never hear them say, "Macroevolution is one species (or genus) giving rise to a new genus."

Dan wouldn't get away with his definition of macroevolution with me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dan asks, "Would a brand new morphological feature count as macroevolution?"

My reply would be: "Did that brand new morphological feature change, or create a new, genus of the animal it was found on?"

Dan also says that creationists usually define "kind" as "family." If that's true, it's wrong. Kind = Genus

 

[Frank Robert]

I love it when someone gives a definition of macroevolution.

They always say it is, "Evolution above the species level," but they always stop short of what they mean.

Did you watch the video? Dan gave several examples of microevolution that are happening today. He noted that creationists are unable to produce a dividing line or what they mean by information to which Dr. Kovind never took up the challenge. Dan then answered it himself, that there is no dividing line, meaning a dividing line is not necessary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you watch the video?

I'm watching it now (I'm at 12:22).

And I'm just taking something he says and coming back here and making comments as I watch it, versus taking notes and coming back here with one big post.

In other words, I'm just "thinking out loud" and making posts, instead of notes.

(Post-it Notes ... get it? )

 

[Frank Robert]

Dan asks, "Would a brand new morphological feature count as macroevolution?"

My reply would be: "Did that brand new morphological feature change, or create a new, genus of the animal it was found on?"

Dan actually gave two morphological changes. The lizards developing placenta and the multicellular algae.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dan actually gave two morphological changes. The lizards developing placenta and the multicellular algae.

Ya ... I just watched that.

So he has what? one example of a lizard that lays three eggs, then gives birth with a placenta?

That explains something I couldn't explain before: the dinosaur-with-a-navel mentioned in Job.

Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

 

[pitabread]

Dan also says that creationists usually define "kind" as "family." If that's true, it's wrong. Kind = Genus

Most creationists aren't defining "kind" based on what they find in a thesaurus.

Dan is correct that most creationists usually define "kind" at the Family level of taxonomy, although that definition is a bit fluid since it can sometimes encapsulate varying level of taxonomy (typically species through order).

The bottom line though is trying to equate creationist definitions of "kind" with Linnaean taxonomy is a bit of fool's errand to begin with since in principle the definition of "kind" should stand on its own.

 

[pitabread]

They always say it is, "Evolution above the species level," but they always stop short of what they mean.

They don't explain that the next step above the species level is "genus."

So you'll never hear them say, "Macroevolution is one species (or genus) giving rise to a new genus."

Evolution above the species level is simply when traditional populations can no longer interbreed; effectively all that means is macroevolution = reproductive isolation. IOW, the formation of a new species.

Taxonomic ranks beyond that are irrelevant insofar as reproductive isolation. Those ranks are simply about applying human defined artificial classifications for the purpose of making groups of things easier to talk about. They aren't actual biological classifications that exist independently in nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most creationists aren't defining "kind" based on what they find in a thesaurus.

I use its etymology.

From Etymology Online:

GENUS: (Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"

Genus = Kind

Dan is correct that most creationists usually define "kind" at the Family level of taxonomy, although that definition is a bit fluid since it can sometimes encapsulate varying level of taxonomy (typically species through order).

As I said, if most creationists define "kind" at the Family level, I believe they are wrong.

The bottom line though is trying to equate creationist definitions of "kind" with Linnaean taxonomy is a bit of fool's errand to begin with since in principle the definition of "kind" should stand on its own.

I agree. And it certainly did for thousands of years, until Linnaeus came along and injected his particular brand of science into it and muddied the waters.

Today, KIND has been Arab-phoned to GENUS, and now no one knows what the proper definition is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution above the species level is simply when traditional populations can no longer interbreed; effectively all that means is macroevolution = reproductive isolation. IOW, the formation of a new species.

Taxonomic ranks beyond that are irrelevant insofar as reproductive isolation. Those ranks are simply about applying human defined artificial classifications for the purpose of making groups of things easier to talk about. They aren't actual biological classifications that exist independently in nature.

Then why does Dan use the term "Family," if "Family" is just as artificial as "Genus"?

 

[Frank Robert]

Ya ... I just watched that.

So he has what? one example of a lizard that lays three eggs, then gives birth with a placenta?

That explains something I couldn't explain before: the dinosaur-with-a-navel mentioned in Job.

Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

No, he gave two examples. BTW, Nice job of moving the goal posts.

 

[pitabread]

As I said, if most creationists define "kind" at the Family level, I believe they are wrong.

That's nice, but irrelevant here. Dan is responding to the broader claims of creationists, not your specific definition of "kind".

Today, KIND has been Arab-phoned to GENUS, and now no one knows what the proper definition is.

Meanings of words typically change over time. Likewise, words can have multiple meanings depending on context.

If you have a problem with how language evolves, that's a separate issue.

 

[pitabread]

Then why does Dan use the term "Family," if "Family" is just as artificial as "Genus"?

He's simply pointing out how creationists typically define it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yay for Kent!

At 22:30 ff, he makes the point I just made: that they don't explain what they mean by "above the species level."

And Kent says he would be cautious of using the word "species," and I couldn't agree with him more.

This idea of calling everything a species now is nothing more than evolution rhetoric to try and save face.

And referring to everything above the species level as "artificial" just QEDs that point.